Fig. 7.

In-vivo performance of enthesis-like graft on regenerating canine RC enthesis evaluated with MRI, gross observation, micro-CT. (A) Schematic illustration for the construction of enthesis-like graft. (B) Microscopic morphology and H&E-stained imaging of enthesis-like graft. BZ: bony zone, FZ: fibrocartilaginous zone, TZ: tendinous zone. Bar = 250 μm. (C) Flowchart depicting the groups and time points for outcome assessments. (D) Representative MRI scans of the CTL and EG group at postoperative month 1, 2, or 3. The average signal-to-noise quotient (SNQ) of the CTL and EG groups at 1, 2 and 3 months. No difference was found at 2 and 3 months, but at 1 month, the average SNQ of the CTL group was significantly higher than that of the EG group. The injured IT enthesis is marked by a yellow triangle. All data are presented as the mean ± SEM (n = 5). *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001 (Two-way ANOVA with Bonferroni's test). (E) Gross appearances of the regenerated infraspinatus tendon enthesis in a canine model at 3 months (n = 13). AC: acromion, IT: infraspinatus tendon, H: humerus. ns P > 0.05 (Fisher's exact test for comparing gap healing rate between CTL and EG groups). (F) Representative micro-CT images of the proximal humerus in the CTL EG or INT group at postoperative month 3. Comparison of the BV/TV, Tb·Th, and Tb·N in newly formed bone among the 3 groups. Red dotted circle shows the IT insertion footprint. Blue quadrangle shows the section position of tomography. Red dotted line indicates the osteotomy site. Bar = 1 cm. All data are presented as the mean ± SEM (n = 5). ns P > 0.05, *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01 (Unpaired t-test).